FABRICANT, J. The employee appeals from a decision in which an administrative judge denied and dismissed her claim for medical and specific loss of function benefits. We affirm the decision.

The employee alleges respiratory problems beginning in 1996, attributed to working as a teacher in a moldy environment. The self-insurer accepted her claim, and paid workers' compensation benefits until she retired in 2000. The employee's present claim is for continuing respiratory problems, allegedly attributable to her prior workplace exposure to mold. The judge denied her claim at conference, and the employee appealed to a full evidentiary hearing. (Dec. 2.)

The §11A impartial medical examiner diagnosed the employee with asthma, deeming her current regimen of medication to be reasonable. (Dec. 2, Dep. 13.) The impartial examiner also acknowledged the employee's history of symptoms originating with air quality issues while working prior to 2000. However, concluding that the impartial physician's opinion fell short in supporting a causal relationship, the judge ultimately denied the employee's claim. (Dec. 2-3.)

The employee argues that the judge erred by not addressing its post-deposition motion for inadequacy of the § 11A opinion. However, the judge's lack of action on the employee's post-deposition motion may, in fact, be deemed a denial of that motion. See Rusconi, Petitioner, 341 Mass. 167 (1960)(failure to act on motion deemed to be implied denial). The judge clearly considered the deposition, and cites to it in his decision. Thus, the question remains as to whether the judge abused his discretion in finding that opinion adequate.

The employee's inadequacy argument is centered on the theory that a self-contradictory opinion under § 11A cannot be adequate, as the nature of prima facie evidence is inherently compromised in such a situation. See Brooks v. Labor Management Services, 11 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. 575 (1997). The employee proffers as contradictory the doctor's opinion that work is no longer a factor in any symptomatology, and his final deposition answer that the use of medications to treat the asthmatic symptoms "is part of the continuing process." (Dep. 39.) The doctor first testified regarding causal relationship:

Q: . . . [D]o you have an opinion as to whether these [work] conditions aggravated her condition, made her symptomatic even to this day?

. . .

A: I do believe that that [work] exposure aggravated her condition. I cannot say -- I don't think that that [work] exposure is causing her current symptoms.

Q: [D]o you have an opinion as to what is causing her current symptoms?

A: I think she does have upper respiratory inflammation, postnasal drip and perhaps some asthma, but the exacerbating environmental triggers that she reported to me are not related to her work in the school system over seven years ago.

Q: . . . [I]s it possible that the persistence of her symptoms result[s] from the original exposure to mold and a current reaction to other contaminants that wouldn't otherwise exist?

A: Anything is possible.

Q: Do you have an opinion whether or not that us likely?

A: I think it is unlikely.

(Dep. 27-28; emphasis added.) The doctor also testified, while ruling out the diagnosis of reactive airways disease found by the employee's treating physician, that "[h]er reactions were more typical of a patient with extrinsic asthma and allergies who was reacting, as anyone with allergies to molds, when exposed to molds." (Dep. 25.)

In contrast to this cogent opinion on causal relationship, the employee interposes a rather confused examination leading to the doctor's "continuing process" testimony which concluded his deposition:

Q: So there is a continuing connection between her original diagnosis and what symptoms she has to the present, is that right?

A: She says she can't breathe when she is exposed to molds.

I have no reason to disbelieve her. Certainly I think that is reasonable. I can't prove it or disprove it. I have to take that at face value and say I think it is reasonable to say based on the opinions of the people taking care of her at the time and her own history that there appears to be a relationship and I would think prudence would say we should avoid all such situations.

Q: And the use of medicines similarly to help her to avoid episodes would likewise be prudent?

A: In the proper -- with the proper supervision and in the proper context, determining which medicines [] would be the most appropriate[,] would be in her best interest.

I am not sure that has been done.

Q: But medicines of some sort to continue to deal with her symptoms?

A: Yes.

Q: Asthmatic symptoms is appropriate?

A: Yes.

Q: And in the same way continues to be related to her original development of these symptoms?

A: It is part of the continuing process.

(Dep. 38-39.)

As the doctor was never asked what he meant by the "continuing process," his answer stands as ambiguous. We do not think the answer requires a finding that the original work exposure continues to have a causal connection to the present asthmatic sensitivity, which the doctor clearly testified was "unlikely." (Dep. 28.) Thus, there was no inherent contradiction as contemplated in Brooks. We see no abuse of discretion in the judge's de facto denial of the employee's motion for a declaration of inadequacy of the § 11A opinion.

Given our disposition of the inadequacy issue, the judge's failure to address the employee's § 36 claim is, at most, harmless error. Absent causal relationship, no claim for specific loss of function benefits may logically stand. The employee's reliance on Florea v. County of Bristol Sheriff's Dept., 22 Mass. Workers' Comp. Rep. ___ (2008) is inapposite. Unlike the present case, the impartial opinion on causal relationship was utterly equivocal in Florea. Under such circumstances, the judge's action in Florea, allowing additional medical evidence in order to address the employee's § 36 claim was within the reasonable exercise of his discretion.

The decision is affirmed.

So ordered.

_____________________ William A. McCarthy Administrative Law Judge

_____________________ Bernard W. Fabricant Administrative Law Judge

Filed: March 30, 2009

[1]Judge Koziol recused herself from this case and did not participate in panel discussions.

Tool Name: Baynote, Inc. Recommendations

The information below summarizes privacy policy terms related to content recommendations on Mass.Gov and is excerpted from the full Mass.gov privacy policy.

Purpose: Displays relevant content recommendation based on the site usage pattern of all users of Mass.Gov. If Personalization is enabled (the default setting), your personal site usage pattern today and on prior visits to Mass.gov will be displayed to you and will also be a factor in determining personalized relevant recommendations for you.

Data Collected: A random anonymous unique identifier is assigned and tracked for each user of the website. This identifier is sent to our vendor, Baynote, when you view a page, open a document or click a link on Mass.Gov. Our vendor then analyzes the specific content that was viewed and provides content recommendations to similar content that you may find useful. A full description of what data Baynote collects and how it uses this data is available at http://www.baynote.com/baynote-services-privacy-policy/. Please note that the tool uses persistent cookies. These cookies will be Mass.gov domain cookies and not Baynote domain cookies. The cookies will store information related to a user’s Mass.gov Web site usage, including the URL and title of sites recently visited and the random anonymous unique identifier assigned to the user. In general, and as described in more detail in Baynote’s service privacy policy linked to above, Baynote only uses the personalized information it gathers to provide recommendation services and display past usage for Mass.Gov users and will not share this information with any third parties, including advertisers. The information collected will not affect content you may see on sites unaffiliated with Mass.Gov.

Express Opt Out: If personalization of recommendations based on the content you view is not desired, or you do not wish to display a list of recently viewed Mass.gov pages, you may turn personalization off. You can do this by using either the switch located below in this privacy policy or an identical switch located directly above the content recommendations and recently viewed content boxes displayed on the Mass.gov site. Once you turn off personalization, your content recommendations will be based on the overall traffic patterns of all users of Mass.Gov and they will not specifically take into account your own personal usage patterns. If you turn off personalization, information collected by this Tool that is associated with your content usage will be deleted from your cookies, and no further information about your content usage will be sent to our vendor.

Disabling personalization will affect both content recommendations and recently viewed page links. If you turn off personalization, this “off” setting will persist as you browse Mass.Gov and during any future sessions. The opt-out setting is stored in a persistent cookie on your computer. The setting will remain in effect so long as you use the same computer with the same Internet browser. If you delete the cookie that contains the opt-out setting or use a different browser or computer, personalization will be enabled and you will need to disable it again on your next visit, if desired.

For our full privacy policy, please close this window and see the Site Policies or Privacy Policy link in the footer of the page.